Everyday DevTools MCP

hash_text

Generate MD5, SHA1, SHA256, or SHA512 hashes from text locally to verify data integrity or create checksums.

Instructions

Hash text with md5, sha1, sha256 or sha512.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "hash_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`algorithm`	No		sha256

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say the operation is side-effect free, a pure one-way digest, whether the output is lowercase hex, or what happens with an unsupported algorithm string, so the agent knows the what but not the how-it-behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the verb and accepted algorithms front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than being optimally informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter utility with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but leaves out the return-value format (hex encoding, digest length) and the default algorithm behavior. Those omissions matter for an agent that must consume the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by listing md5/sha1/sha256/sha512 where the schema's `algorithm` property is an unconstrained string with no enum. It omits the sha256 default value and any note on the required `text` parameter, leaving the compensation incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Hash text") and enumerates the four supported digest algorithms, which makes the tool's job unmistakable and separates it from the encoding/decoding siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over base64_encode or other siblings, and no mention of preconditions such as the text being pre-processed or the algorithm needing to be lowercase. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server